CAIRO — Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the most prestigious centre of religious learning in the Sunni Muslim world, said on Tuesday that Islam bans suicide for any reason.

“Sharia law states that Islam categorically forbids suicide for any reason and does not accept the separation of souls from bodies as an expression of stress, anger or protest,” said Al-Azhar’s spokesman Mohammed Rifa al-Tahtawi in a statement on state news agency MENA.

“Al-Azhar cannot comment on the cases of people who had burned themselves, as these may be suffering from a mental or psychological condition that forced them to do so,” he said.

It might seem odd to some, but the Muslim scholars are actively pushing an idea which devalues the Islamic terrorists’ main weapon, suicide bombings.  & they do so in a very definitive way.  Even though the escape hatch of narrowly aiming their critiques to only self-immolation is obvious, they still don’t speak in political terms or try to limit themselves to suicide by fire.

Instead of taking the easy path; they took the moral one and stated directly that suicide in any form is forbidden under Islam and recent attacks may well involve psychological issues.

Which interestingly enough, brings us back to the Arizona shooting debate (DA post here) where I argue that rhetoric or guns can’t cause a free and moral people to suddenly and irrationally take up arms.  Indeed by proffering so, people are ignoring the fact that America, as well as many other semi-free countries, has a culture whereby the vast majority agree that killing is not an appropriate reaction to someone else exercising their free speech (agree vocally & through our legal system).

I juxtaposed American culture against some religious fundamentalist examples.  One, the Muslim online magazine (Inspire), which in mid-2010 was still pushing for revenge against Danish media for daring to print Mohammed cartoons.  Not only pushing, but the cleric writing the article stated (paraphrased) assassinations, bombings, killings, etc, are all valid responses to religious “slander”.  Additionally, I used the recent assassination of a provincial governor in Pakistan in which clerics (500+) issued decrees that anyone caught grieving for the slain governor can be punished.

The governor’s sin?  Agreeing with the national government of Pakistan that blasphemy laws currently on the books should be repealed.

Both are examples of a different a culture where killing in response to slander or blasphemy (both forms of speech) is acceptable.  Therefore, a culture in which vitriol about the blood of patriots or having to get your pitchforks out means something entirely different than it means in America.

So much in the same way that America isn’t culturally like a lot of Pakistan when it comes to the belief that violence is a respectable tool in almost any case, neither is Egypt.  As Egypt also has a societal belief, proven in their laws and willingness to prosecute terrorists, that terrorism and suicide bombings are not the way to make political points.

In the hearts and minds game, Egypt progressed past its beginnings to reach this point.  It has to be noted that Egypt worked hard at this and came about it only after many years, through the force of a moderate leader who was assassinated. (side story:  UN investigation into Hezbollah’s <funded by Iran> hand in the assassination is what brought down the Lebanese government) Culture is after all a generational problem (or benefit).

To see the full context, Stratfor’s piece on Egypt written in light of recent terrorist attacks within Egypt by Muslims against Christians is an excellent resource.  Stratfor starts by providing context, detailing Egypt’s ruthless efficiency for dealing with terrorists, even after President Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981.  Giving an underpinning to the reason why the terrorist attacks in Egypt deserve special attention; Egypt is entering a time of leadership change.  Therefore the two sides of Egypt, the more liberal side (liberal for the Middle East that is) against the Islamists (read entire piece here):

What is clear, however, is that the attack on a church in one country — Egypt — is far from common and was particularly destructive. Egypt has been relatively quiet in terms of terrorism, and there have been few recent attacks on the large Coptic Christian population. The Egyptian government has been effective in ruthlessly suppressing Islamist extremists and has been active in sharing intelligence on terrorism with American, Israeli and other Muslim governments. Its intelligence apparatus has been one of the mainstays of global efforts to limit terrorism as well as keep Egypt’s domestic opposition in check.

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign….

 Now it’s obviously impossible to know whether Mr. Krugman was honestly surprised about the horrendous events of this past weekend or not, but it seems hard to believe that anyone who heard about the incident thought, “yep – saw that coming.”

But in the grand scheme, it really doesn’t matter whether he was truly surprised as that’s not his main point.  Before he gets there though, he has to set up the framework (article cont’d):

…And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again….

That’s some prescient vision he has there.  Without any proof, without any examples, without anything at all, he can “see” what was inevitable.  Not sure why he didn’t stop it or call for the possibility as loudly as possible.  It seems like the only moral actions when you “know” violent acts committed against innocent parties is inevitable. 

Additionally, this uncanny ability of his makes one wonder if the people from Miss Cleo’s office has contacted him yet to see if he’s looking for a career change?   Or maybe the CIA would like to test his capabilities?

But I digress, extra-sensory perceptions aside, Mr. Krugman continues framing the argument using a government report (article cont’d):

The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: In April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence….

Which would be interesting to note, if only it were true.  There was and is a DHS report detailing the potential for increased radicalization and recruitment due to a very unique climate, but the report itself begins with this easily comprehendible statement:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that doemstic righwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

The report continues as it details what it sees as specific climate variables for which rightwing extremist groups might exploit, but noted, in the 2nd paragraph the threats which concern Mr. Krugman so much, are “largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts“.

But Mr. Krugman sees, so a potential for increased recruitment and radicalization based upon societal factors and an increase in the potential for real harm are now the same.  I doubt that’s true for most objectively viewing the same data, but I don’t think most people think like Mr. Krugman.

Nonetheless, our vaunted author continues.  With an increase in threats (real) and vandalism (possibly real, no studies, no proof offered), Mr. Krugman’s vision sees the obvious results (article cont’d):

One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has….

Who was that guy again? 

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled.  But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate….

So even though Mr. Krugman believes the shooter is likely insane, the national climate is somehow involved.  Not only involved, but (article cont’d):

…something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

His proof?  Increased levels of violence?  Increased crime rates?  Nope.  Crime rates only exist up to 2008 and show a consistent decline.  But he has something…. sort of (article cont’d):

Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent….

Notice the nice little conflation trick here, as Mr. Krugman uses an increase in threats to ALL members of congress as a sign on increased rightwing extremism. 

In the very article he mentions, Politco notes some of the threats with names of Congress members and as you’d expect, Republicans and well as Democrats were targets, but notes those are the very few examples they were able to access directly as most threats from 2010 are still being investigated. 

Therefore at this time, the 300% increase is an FBI number, but one without context.   They don’t note any pattern in who was threatened, patterns from whom the threats originated, total number of threats (300% increase of 8 isn’t a reason for alarm), nor any past patterns to determine whether this is an anomaly or a continuous trend regardless of office holders.

But when you’re Mr. Krugman, logic isn’t needed; so he continues (article cont’d):

And there’s not much question what has changed.

There’s not much question what has changed?  Really?  I know people tend to pine for the good old days as they mature and I know many people readily agree that society is coarser today than it was in yesteryear (whose time frame noticeably differs by the age of the one evaluating), but I have yet to see anything resembling objective proof.

Not only have I not seen any objective proof demonstrating things were indeed better in some period in the past, but I don’t know that an effective way of answering such a question is possible. 

The problem is that real analysis would require a selection of variables, defining the weight of each variable, then finally a review of all those variables and their changes over time.   It’s not hard to see how even selecting which variables to be used is fraught with subjectivity, but also defining the weight of each variable as well.

For example, let’s say you are evaluating whether 2010 is better or worse than 1950.  The problem is that even if we could all (read: vast majority) agree that politeness isn’t what it used to be in the golden laced, greener grassed place known as yesteryear, how do you weigh that against say, increased rights for women on the domestic front?

Should domestic rights for women be given the same weight in an evaluation of 1800 as 2010 since the culture was so vastly different.  It’s possible the lack of rights in 1800 versus the rights women enjoy today may not have been “missed” in the 1800s by the majority of women.  Does it even matter if they weren’t missed?

But I digress…. the point is still the same.  Assertions, but no provable ones are all we get so far.  As expected, Mr. Krugman continues with his only available recourse, conjecture. 

& when making things up, who better to use as evidence than the “investigating” Sheriff.   You recall; the guy who “feels” vitriol is bad and believes “millions agree” with him about the evils of talk radio, even though he admits they don’t vocally agree with him and he offers no real proof… that guy?

Yes.  Him…. so with reasons to the contrary, Mr. Krugman uses the Sheriff as a reliable expert (article cont’d):

As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.”

 Again  – an assertion which is not provable.  The issues?  Much the same with the prior question: define vitriol, explain how bad it is, and let me know how vitriol on tv in the 1950 when only 3 channels existed, none of which broadcasted a full 24 hours a day, relates in degree to vitriol on tv when there are well over 100 channels, as well as many other things to distract us such as Netflix, dvds, internet, etc, etc, etc…

This of course doesn’t stop Mr. Krugman, because when you seek only to confirm previously held beliefs, rational thought is a nuisance.  But we still don’t have his real point, so let’s continue. 

With only conjecture swirling around improvable assertions, Mr. Krugman and our logic impaired Sheriff still firmly believe that this situation is very, very bad.  And they know not only that, but also the main perpetrators. 

They know who is perpetrating evil on us right now through vitriol and hate filled rallies.  Through their exhaustive research and understanding of humans and logic, the purveyors of evil just happen to be the Sheriff’s & Mr. Krguman’s political opponents (article cont’d):

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: It’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.

His proof?  Nothing, though not surprising at this point, as once again his assertions are not provable in any objective sense.

But he continues, ad nauseum, with all kinds of statements about how the left has caustic figures, but the right is the only party using the language of armed resistance.  He names names of those on the radio and TV, yet never actually attributes any direct quote to anyone named using any of this evil language (except one Republican politician, but fails to mention politicians on his side saying similar things).

& note here too that trying to objectively evaluate which side of the isle uses more pernicious language has the same set of problems as deciding whether yesteryear was better or worse than today.  It’s a completely subjective question, with completely subjective variables, each of which will be weighted in a completely subjective manner.  Not to mention the problems inherent when defining sides:  like whether a Democrat from Texas is a true liberal or a Republican from Vermont is a true conservative.

Not to mention any context within which to place such pernicious language.  Like, is it ok to use language of violence and revolution when trying to free the slaves?  Trying to fight for women’s suffrage?  How about when trying to fight against censorship?

But for Mr. Krugman, all these complexities and nuances are no challenge at all.  With his SuperMan like mental abilities, all logical concerns can be leaped in a single bound.  You see, he knows this is the truth because he can sense it.  & really, if you take Mr. Krugman at his word, his conjectures which he morphs into his assertions, this whole thing works out really well for him. 

Maybe he didn’t notice this at first, but amazingly enough, his narrative all fits perfectly for his side.  Must be comfortable position to know that the most malignant evil vitriol is over there, with those other people, all while your side might be overly caustic, sometimes, but certainly not evil.

As Dana Carvey playing the Church Lady used to sneeringly say, “How convenient….”

"How con-VEEN-ient!"

Gutcheck:  If you ever find yourself in a position where  you strongly believe that the people and groups with whom you disagree are doing everything wrong and your side is doing everything rights, you are probably too invested to objectively evaluate that situation and in all likelihood, wrong.

…Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators….

To most, this might seem an obvious consequence of the legislation.  The economics and logic of these required rate increases are undeniable.  If someone, in this case the government through force of law, tells a private business that they must increase their spending, under force of law, some, if not all, of those new expenditures will be passed on to consumers (WSJ continues):

…Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates….

…Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada…

…Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon said the cost of providing additional benefits under the health law will account on average for 3.4 percentage points of a 17.1% premium rise for a small-employer health plan…

…In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Celtic Insurance Co. says half of the 18% increase it is seeking comes from complying with health-law mandates….

Not only should this seem obvious, but in a free country, any company should be able to set their rates for their services.

This of course assumes you don’t work for the government – then the news is shocking (WSJ continues):

…The White House says insurers are using the law as an excuse to raise rates and predicts that state regulators will block some of the large increases.

“I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you’re quoting… are justified,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House’s top health official. She said that for insurers, raising rates was “already their modus operandi before the bill” passed. “We believe consumers will see through this,” she said….

Not only shocking – but so wrong that even more force is needed.

Enter the Department of Health and Human Services threatening private business, for making private decisions, solely because those decisions disagree with the government’s predictions (via HHS website – bold added):

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act.  I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases….

…We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent….

…Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act.  Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections….

Think carefully about some of  these words/phrases used by government officials against private businesses in a free country: zero tolerance, misinformation, not tolerate, unjustified….all for raising theirs rates at a greater rate than the government assumed.

Maybe it’s just me, but when the government threatens people for fishy emails, then moves forward to threaten private business for deciding what to charge for their services…. well, it certainly doesn’t appear to be a free society.

As Thomas Jefferson stated so many years ago:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

]]> http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/09/13/healthcare-government-threats/feed/ 0 http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/07/29/moral-markets/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=moral-markets http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/07/29/moral-markets/#comments Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:36:51 +0000 Michael S. Langston http://detailedabstractions.com/?p=1160 Over @ Concuring Opinions, Nate Oman has an interesting post about the defenses of a free market (whole thing here):

Broadly speaking, I think that there are three families of arguments that can be made in defense of markets. Most commonly within the legal academy markets are defended on the basis of efficiency….

The second defense of markets is libertarian. This looks a lot of like the efficiency argument but is actually quite different, notwithstanding the fact that libertarians frequently confuse the two. In the libertarian argument what matters is not welfare but freedom. Freedom is taken as a good in and of itself, even if choices might result in reductions of welfare for the chooser….

The third argument is a defense of markets as markets.

Both the efficiency and the libertarian defenses of markets are reductionist in the sense that they see the good of markets in a unitary way. Markets are good because — properly constructed — they move resources around to maximize welfare….

Markets are good because they provide cooperation in the face of disagreement over the definition of the good and “social stability.”…

It’s a very decent article, though as a non-card carrying libertarian, I need to disagree with some of his minor points.  Namely, that libertarians are by group interested in freedom alone.  In fact, libertarians, just like other demographic groups get to the same answers through different paths and all three paths are prevalent in the current party.

For some libertarians, it is an…. intellectual/efficiency argument alone.  They believe markets aren’t necessarily moral or perfect at rationing, but they firmly believe that a free market leads to the best possible solution for the most people.

For me, I take the freedom approach.  To maximize individual welfare means one must maximize individual choices.  This might seem as too moralistic or philosophical for some as to be practical or useful, but it seems logical that reducing one mans’ freedom is antithetical to maximizing welfare.

& to be thoroughish, lots of libertarians are just tired of all the other parties and joined that cool one with that goofy, “Who is Ron Paul” stuff.  In reality, like most organizations, libertarians are not absolutists either way using a combination of thoughts to form their basis for their beliefs, but I digress.

The author continues about the third way:

On this view, traders are not cowardly, greedy, souless parasites (see, e.g., Shylock) constantly tempting the virtuous away from the path of justice with filthy lucre. Rather, commerce encourages courage, honesty, and fidelity. It encourages cooperation rather than predation. It allows people with widely disparate views of the ultimate ends and purposes of life to peacefully cooperate with one another. Commerce rewards the frugal and the farsighted, while punishing the wastrel and the spendthrift…..

But he tells us….

The third, pluralist view of the good of markets gets scant attention…

While this maybe a true statement, but the reality is that all three defenses coexist to form both a cohesive political and philosophical framework (though I do have issues with libertarians on foreign policy).

If we can start with the idea that maximizing welfare includes maximizing freedom, efficiency, freedom, & moral markets work together.

When starting with the paramount of freedom in economics, one also gets into the land of (un)intended consequences and perverted incentives.  Hayek talked about this a great deal – the fact that due to the shear size and complexity of the market, any attempted centralized interference will change incentives and unlikely for the better.  Unlikely, because the “status quo” we all question exists through millions and millions of individual transactions.

For lack of a better term, a collective wisdom emerges, order out of chaos.  An answer, that we might not like, but something for which a centralized system is (highly) unlikely to do better than free individuals.  The result is the most efficient use of resources we can hope to achieve while maintaining the most individual freedoms we can.

What about the morals? Well….it’s not as if we don’t have recent examples to help us out.  Leaving out the current mess of a tax code, take the recent financial crisis.

Predatory lenders?  Sure.  Fraudulent and speculative borrowers? Sure.  The reason why it worked so well?  Government incentives pushed quasi-government agencies to purchase loans without much oversight.

Why no oversight?  No skin in the game.  They couldn’t fail.  The market believed it & they believed it.  & in the end, the government proved them right.  Do the wrong thing, over and over and over and over again until it finally collapses and someone else ends up paying the bill….

So while the author is probably correct that we don’t use a moral market argument much, especially in an atmosphere of language such as “fat-cats”, he’s incorrect that this moral option is a “third” argument.  It is indeed part and parcel of the framework that markets are more efficient, better at maximizing freedom, and yes, even better at incenting moral behavior as well.

More on market morals here

For such a prestigious and life long appointment, we should expect much better (via Cato here):

Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, seemed to shock many people when she dodged questions about the Declaration of Independence during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee…

DA posts here & here

Via Freakanomics here, which will hopefully put to rest the idea that nurses go on strike to “help” patients, from the NBER paper:

…Controlling for hospital-specific heterogeneity, patient demographics and disease severity, the results show that nurses’ strikes increase in-hospital mortality by 19.4% and 30-day readmission by 6.5% for patients admitted during a strike, with little change in patient demographics, disease severity or treatment intensity….

Robert Reich via Salon.com here demonstrates once again how much politics effects his economic analysis.  According to him, this whole economic mess, including a potential backslide can be blamed solely on deregulation:

…starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It increased the cost of public higher education and cut public transportation. It shredded safety nets…

Which he believes is causing greater wage disparities:

…We’re back to the same ominous trend as before the Great Recession: a larger and larger share of total income going to the very top while the vast middle class continues to lose ground….

Because with deregulation, of course, companies can become EVIL:

…Companies were allowed to slash jobs and wages, cut benefits and shift risks to employees (from you-can-count-on-it pensions to do-it-yourself 401(k)s, from good health coverage to soaring premiums and deductibles)….

I submit what Mr. Reich fears is freedom – freedom of business owners to hire and fire as they wish, freedom of employees to change jobs easily (401K allows this, pension does not), just freedom.

Secondarily, you can see in his writing that the only thing the government has ever done wrong, is by not getting involved enough.  He doesn’t mention government meddling, deficit spending, enormous new health care expenses, entirely new federal agencies which more money will be needed, idiotic regulations like a moratorium on all oil drilling due to one company’s failure….

Nope, for Mr. Reich, it’s all because the government hasn’t taken enough control over the little people.

Via Cato here, more news on the Obama Administration’s transparency:

The Social Security’s trustees’ annual report is, by law, supposed to be published by April 1. This year, however, the trustees have postponed its release indefinitely. The program’s financial condition continues to remain hidden from public view — and by many accounts will continue to be so until the end of the fiscal year….

Wonder if Reich views this as an issue?